The_Squid Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 A group of white separatist domestic terroristshave occupied the Malheur National Widlife Refuge Building in Burns, Oregon, fronted by the racist terrorist leader Cliven Bundy, who organized supporters to point sniper rifles at federal officers without any consequence in Nevada last year. http://boingboing.net/2016/01/03/armed-domestic-terrorists-take.html Often these domestic terrorists are referred to as "militia". But let's call a spade a spade. These are obviously terrorists. How soon will the FBI take back the gov't office? Would the reaction be different if these were brown - skinned terrorists? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 How soon will the FBI take back the gov't office? The same speed at which they liberated the parks taken by the Occupy movement........ Would the reaction be different if these were brown - skinned terrorists? Are the "brown skins" using violence or partaking in a peaceful protest? Quote
Guest Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 http://boingboing.net/2016/01/03/armed-domestic-terrorists-take.html Often these domestic terrorists are referred to as "militia". But let's call a spade a spade. These are obviously terrorists. How soon will the FBI take back the gov't office? Would the reaction be different if these were brown - skinned terrorists? Are they likely to kill the hostages just because it's fun to do so? Oh, no hostages. So it's a little different. Get them out, obviously, but don't risk law enforcement lives when you don't have to. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 Are they likely to kill the hostages just because it's fun to do so? Oh, no hostages. So it's a little different. I would say so........from the information in the media, not a single act of violence has occurred during this protest over a court ruling........notice the contrast between this and the previous riots in Ferguson or Baltimore. Get them out, obviously, but don't risk law enforcement lives when you don't have to. Why? Are said protesters disrupting the public? Are they disallowing the public from using the National Park? Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 Are the "brown skins" using violence or partaking in a peaceful protest?How do determine "peaceful"? If they're armed, does it still count? Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Derek 2.0 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 How do determine "peaceful"? If they're armed, does it still count? Sure, why wouldn't it be considered peaceful? As I've said, I stand to be corrected, not a single act of violence has taken place, so why would it mater if they were armed or not? Americans have an enshrined right to bear arms and peaceful protest. From the CBC: Bundy said the group planned to stay at the refuge indefinitely. On Sunday, supplies were seen being delivered to the refuge area, which is remote even by rural Oregon standards. It would seem this "Occupying" of a Wildlife refuge isn't having an impact on the locals, in addition to being non-violent. The one march they held in a local town: As marchers reached the courthouse, they tossed hundreds of pennies at the locked door. Their message: Civilians were buying back their government. After the march passed, two girls swooped in to scavenge the pennies. A few blocks away, Hammond and his wife, Susan, greeted marchers, who planted flower bouquets in the snow. They sang some songs, Hammond said a few words, and the protesters marched back to their cars. Contrasted with the Occupy movement or the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore.......... Quote
Guest Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 Sure, why wouldn't it be considered peaceful? As I've said, I stand to be corrected, not a single act of violence has taken place, so why would it mater if they were armed or not? Americans have an enshrined right to bear arms and peaceful protest. They are armed, actually occupying a government building and have threatened deadly force if they are removed. That's not a peaceful protest. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 They are armed, So? Americans have a right to be armed. actually occupying a government building How is that different than the Occupy movement which occupied public land/parks? and have threatened deadly force if they are removed. No, they have stated they will defend themselves if violence is used against them........that is legal in the United States. That's not a peaceful protest. Has anyone been killed or injured? Has private or public property been damaged? Have Businesses been unable to open or the public unable to go to work and school etc? Who is/has been interrupted, let alone injured, by this protest? This protest is no different than Black civil rights protests from the 1960s........ Quote
Guest Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) So? Americans have a right to be armed. But no right to trespass? How is that different than the Occupy movement which occupied public land/parks? No different. They had no right to trespass either. No, they have stated they will defend themselves if violence is used against them........that is legal in the United States. Is it legal when resisting arrest? Has anyone been killed or injured? Has private or public property been damaged? Have Businesses been unable to open or the public unable to go to work and school etc? Who is/has been interrupted, let alone injured, by this protest? This protest is no different than Black civil rights protests from the 1960s........ No-one has the right to break the law when protesting. We established this in the Line 9 pipeline thread. It doesn't matter whether the protest is valid, in one's opinion, or not. The law enforcement response to any protest that breaks the law should be protest specific. Edited January 3, 2016 by bcsapper Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) No-one has the right to break the law when protesting. We established this in the Line 9 pipeline thread. It doesn't matter whether the protest is valid, in one's opinion, or not. What law(s) has this protest broken? The law enforcement response to any protest that breaks the law should be protest specific. As noted in the link from the OP State/local police didn't even come by the protest for the first day........that would indicate that law enforcement isn't too concerned about public safety with this protest. Edited January 3, 2016 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Guest Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 What law(s) has this protest broken? I assume, from the brief article I read on the Beeb, that they are trespassing. If they are breaking no law whatsoever, why is it news? As noted in the link from the OP State/local police didn't even come by the protest for the first day........that would indicate that law enforcement isn't too concerned about public with this protest. And that's good. Obviously no one is in any danger, so they don't need to go in Waco style and risk their lives. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Posted January 3, 2016 And that's good. Obviously no one is in any danger, so they don't need to go in Waco style and risk their lives. Exactly, hence likening this protest to that of a terror attack is absurd. Quote
Guest Posted January 4, 2016 Report Posted January 4, 2016 Exactly, hence likening this protest to that of a terror attack is absurd. Good heavens, I didn't give that impression, did I? I thought I said the opposite. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted January 4, 2016 Report Posted January 4, 2016 Good heavens, I didn't give that impression, did I? I thought I said the opposite. No, I was referring to the OP. Quote
Argus Posted January 4, 2016 Report Posted January 4, 2016 The same speed at which they liberated the parks taken by the Occupy movement........ Were members of the occupy movement armed? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Derek 2.0 Posted January 4, 2016 Report Posted January 4, 2016 Were members of the occupy movement armed? I'd would assume the vast majority weren't........but then they were "allowed" to "Occupy" public land, for the most part in the centers of cities, for months. Are you suggesting this peaceful protest in the remote shrublands of Oregon shouldn't be allowed to continue because a number of said protesters are exercising their 2nd Amendment Right? Quote
Big Guy Posted January 4, 2016 Report Posted January 4, 2016 The local militia has taken control and sworn to "take back the government from ..." not sure from what. They are adequately armed and feel the government has no right to infringe on their rights. The protesters claim that, "... the federal government has been "tromping on people's rights and privileges and properties and livelihoods." They have an interesting view;""We will be here as long as it takes," Bundy said. "We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves." That means they do not INTEND to be the first ones to shoot. Sounds like stuff I have heard before. Looks like in parts the good old USA, if you do not like what the government is doing then you take out your guns and impose your will on others through force. Only in America. God Bless America! Thank God I live in Canada. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Derek 2.0 Posted January 4, 2016 Report Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Only in America. God Bless America! Thank God I live in Canada. Yes indeed, because its not like we've ever seen an armed standoff born out of a protest, resulting in the death of a police officer, started over the development of a golf course..........not in Canada link Edited January 4, 2016 by Michael Hardner added link to image Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 4, 2016 Report Posted January 4, 2016 I'd would assume the vast majority weren't........but then they were "allowed" to "Occupy" public land, for the most part in the centers of cities, for months. Are you suggesting this peaceful protest in the remote shrublands of Oregon shouldn't be allowed to continue because a number of said protesters are exercising their 2nd Amendment Right? It's not terrorism, but there's a gray area here where it could maybe, possibly be considered threatening terrorism. If a group of armed Muslims occupied federal property demanding release of another Muslim they knew, they wouldn't be called a militia. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Derek 2.0 Posted January 4, 2016 Report Posted January 4, 2016 It's not terrorism, but there's a gray area here where it could maybe, possibly be considered threatening terrorism. Where did they threaten terrorism? If a group of armed Muslims occupied federal property demanding release of another Muslim they knew, they wouldn't be called a militia. How likely is it though that a militant group of armed minorities in the United States, inspired by a Muslim cleric (that was assassinated), would protest with "armed assault rifles" on Government property............could never happen........ Quote
ReeferMadness Posted January 4, 2016 Report Posted January 4, 2016 Were members of the occupy movement armed? Yes, with ideas and that made them dangerous. Fortunately, this group has nothing but guns. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
The_Squid Posted January 4, 2016 Author Report Posted January 4, 2016 This occupation/trespass is due to dissatisfaction over farmers who were convicted of arson. Apparently, arson is now a right! Lol What a bunch of dangerous nut bars. Quote
The_Squid Posted January 4, 2016 Author Report Posted January 4, 2016 I'd would assume the vast majority weren't........but then they were "allowed" to "Occupy" public land, for the most part in the centers of cities, for months. Are you suggesting this peaceful protest in the remote shrublands of Oregon shouldn't be allowed to continue because a number of said protesters are exercising their 2nd Amendment Right? So now Derek2.0 thinks the Occupy protestors were just a peaceful group exercising their rights? When did this turn around take place? Oh wait.... it's about guns... they're just protestors now, because it's an issue that he agrees with. So if the government was to go in and remove the Oregon terrorists, like they should, then that would be fine and it would all end well? They've threatened to shoot if anyone tries to remove them. But they have guns and like the phrase "2nd amendment", so they're alright with Derek2.0. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 4, 2016 Report Posted January 4, 2016 Fascinating that the CBC version of this story got so many responses: "Over 5000 comments discussing something that has zero to do with Canadians. LOL." Why would there be such a strong reader response compared to other reported and more serious events from around the world ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
The_Squid Posted January 4, 2016 Author Report Posted January 4, 2016 “We do have a plan,” he said, “and that plan is going to take several months to accomplish. Those who have rights on this land, those rights will be acknowledged. There will be an opportunity to claim those rights. We are going to defend you as you use those rights.” http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/04/oregon-militia-occupying-wildlife-refuge-wants-to-overthrow-government-says-sheriff Do these nutbars not have jobs?? Maybe they have more in common with the "Occupy" protests than first thought... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.